@Snow Dog, that's fine, but you'll not receive my respect in return for the 'favor'. By the way, you might feel more inclined to restrain your enthusiasm for certain albums, if you would take care of what I'll guess is an unfortunate cocaine problem, SNOW Dog. I can be funny when I want.

Believe me, I do not require or need your respect. Infact with your comment you made here I have nothing but contempt for you and everything you say or write.

Yeah that was a deeply stupid remark; accusing someone of being a drug addict because they say the same things about your opinion you said about an album is puerile; you write a negative review of a loved record and don't be surprised to have your views ridiculed. Par for the course.

@Dayvenkirq I'm supporting your proposition that, "having two-three decent moments on an album.." is not exactly redemption for it's numerous faults. I provided an example in the form of a hypothetical question.

having two or three decent moments---depending on the length of time in those moments---(especially if "we must have waited all our lives for those moments" make it a two star

still want it to be an APril Fools joke, but worst than the over the top hate review of Free Hand which I can accept 100% ---what I can't accept is quoting a Yes West song.

For me it's not so much about being a maverick or having your own set of tastes or opinions or anything like that. And on my side, it's not about my favorite album being gored (For clarification, it's not my favorite album). It's about understanding what the ratings mean.

If you go on to an album with dozens of 4 and 5 star reviews at mark it "Only for completionists" you invalidate your own post. You demonstrate to everybody else that you cannot understand the scheme of the ratings and would rather play ratings hockey. You just don't understand that this is about other people and not just about you.

If you think that that many people wouldn't like it because you really, really don't, then I can only say that you're really, really not getting the concept.

@Triceratopsoil I'm not utilizing "rating manipulation". I genuinely think it to be a contrived, and half-hearted effort that belies the putative 'creative freedom' that Chrysalis gave them. There's an obvious pop-sensibility to a good lot of Free Hand (this is reason enough for my suspicion of 'executive' pressure), and regardless of how well you feel that worked (in my case, not at all - awfully, in fact), Chrysalis forced an(other) album that was marred by rushed songwriting, stripped arrangements, and general lack of energy.

Tubes (Hello! from across the River): A key for my ability to "get," appreciate and eventually enjoy GG was watching their live performances (many available on YouTube). These guys worked hard and were very serious at what they did. And they looked like they were having some fun. Their collective creative spirit was certainly odd for the day (and perhaps still is), but their product was, to my mind, sincere and unique. I know I would have enjoyed attending one of their concerts--just to see the mid-song quick-changes of instruments would've satisfied my musical muse.

Welcome to PA. Hope you enjoy your visit. Just remember: You can check out anytime you like BUT YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE!!

@lucas It was no trouble to write. I'm glad you appreciate my 'audacity'. I should also like to encourage you to give, to paraphrase the old expression, a 'discouraging word' or at least a hundred about some GG albums. I understand why some folks who don't find the band particularly listenable avoid reviewing their releases, ie. they try to be positive people, and avert themselves from spreading negativity. But these guys need to receive a more diverse spectrum of commentary than they do.

OK I will write my one-star review. And will try this exercise with other bands like Opeth or Porcupine Tree.

Strongly negative reviews are often followed by outrage here. Especially when dealing with popular albums. It's in the natural way of things, sure, but too often there are voices shouting "stick to reviewing music you enjoy/understand/get" etc. I think that's disheartening. To start with, it's a bit petty and territorial - and the prevalence of such an attitude will devalue the musical profile of the reviewers here. Understanding what people dislike and why is as vital for me as the opposite, when taking their recommendations to heart. Perhaps this is most important if you follow and trust a number of reviewers, rather than occasionally read random reviews on the front page, but I think it adds a lot of value regardless.

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything"

Bullsh*t.

Of course that's not an excuse for not putting at least some effort into expressing those misgivings. Neither is it a reason to crash appreciation threads or trolololol around the forum. That's just plain dumb and uninteresting.

But when did we get so easily offended by just about everything we don't agree with?

Of course that's not an excuse for not putting at least some effort into expressing those misgivings.

I disagree. As I've stated before, ...

Dayvenkirq wrote:

... I'm pretty sure that there are some people on this website that are aware of their inability to appreciate certain things that others see as true merits (and maybe even enjoy the presence of those merits). If I don't understand something about the music on a particular album, that means I'm not going to write a review on it (Hint: The Raven).

To me writing about something I don't understand is just silly.

Tom Ozric wrote:

'Three Friends' is Giant's finest hour for me

Amen, brother! Wish I could do the fancy "shake" with a "dynamite", so instead I'll do

Edited by Dayvenkirq - April 02 2013 at 13:27

"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock

I greatly disagree with his review; however, as long as he's basing his opinion on his own personal taste instead of basing on some hack philosophy on music a la Wayne McGuire, I will not hold it against him for not liking the album. One man's treasure is another man's pile of , as they say.

BTW, I don't think "His Last Voyage" was plagiarized from PFM's "VIa Lumiere", though 'Via Lumiere" is a good track.

He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!

@BrufordFreak, what the hell is with that closing statement, dude? You ARE a freak (just kidding). And to counter your point, I've seen and heard enough GG live stuff to know they suck even worse without the studio. I'm not arguing this with anybody; don't waste my time. You also assert that they "worked hard and were very serious at what they did." Gentle Giant are the least serious and least deliberately committed 'prog' band I have ever heard. Gentle Giant, unlike almost every important classic progressive rock group, has no single magnum opus peice of music, let alone several as there are in many cases. They never made an epic, so to speak. Yes has Awaken and the Gates of Delirium which are about the attainment of immortality upon death, and the Second Advent of Christ, respectively. Very solemn stuff. Genesis has Supper's Ready, inspired by a supernatural experience of Peter Gabriel's and the Book of Revelation. Jethro Tull has at least the My God side of Aqualung, which criticizes organized religion. Even Thick as a Brick, despite it's parodic nature, has a lot to say. They don't sound like they have any self-respect as musicians or writers, wasting so much record space on their 30 minute albums (Average record playing length is 40 minutes, and Genesis consistently delivered upwards of 50 mintutes) with musical comedy. You know what's hilarious? -That Thick as a Brick, which is a commentary on the rubbish that passes for culture, went to No. 1! Could that be more ironic!?! I've never heard Gentle Giant top that.

Okay, I can understand you not liking Gentle Giant for being repetitive and unmemorable (or memorable for all the wrong reasons) - once again, it's a matter of personal taste - but Gentle Giant is not committed to their craft because they never went past the 10 minute mark with their stuff?

He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!

For me it's not so much about being a maverick or having your own set of tastes or opinions or anything like that. And on my side, it's not about my favorite album being gored (For clarification, it's not my favorite album). It's about understanding what the ratings mean.

There must have been countless debates on this.

axeman wrote:

If you go on to an album with dozens of 4 and 5 star reviews at mark it "Only for completionists" you invalidate your own post (you mean review?). You demonstrate to everybody else that you cannot understand the scheme of the ratings and would rather play ratings hockey.

No, that's not necessarily what it means. It can mean many things.

axeman wrote:

You just don't understand that this is aboutother people and not just aboutyou.

That's not necessarily what it means either.

axeman wrote:

If you think that that many people wouldn't like it because you really, really don't, then I can only say that you're really, really not getting the concept.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of that. Some reviewers have this bad habit of using the general "you", which is just wrong.

"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock

Of course that's not an excuse for not putting at least some effort into expressing those misgivings.

I disagree. As I've stated before, ...

Dayvenkirq wrote:

... I'm pretty sure that there are some people on this website that are aware of their inability to appreciate certain things that others see as true merits (and maybe even enjoy the presence of those merits). If I don't understand something about the music on a particular album, that means I'm not going to write a review on it (Hint: The Raven).

To me writing about something I don't understand is just silly.

My point is that understanding music of all things is a pitfall. It's just another barrier and something thrown about by people as a defense. You certainly experience it in some way. You can hopefully express what you experience. You find that experience either nice or bad or noisy or lime green or underwhelming or whatever. Not writing a review then effectively muffles a perfectly valid opinion on the basis of some vague concept of not understanding it properly. It's placing the experience of music (which I think is the thing that matters in a review) in an unnecessary theoretical framework.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum